First, I don't believe journalists should be above the law. I do, however, care about the first amendment more than the next iPhone, and think that police ought to have a damn good reason to raid someone's home, especially a journalist's.

Second, felony theft investigation? Someone posted two sections of CA law above. The first (CA penal code) states that the finder of the property has the obligation to return it. The second (CA civil code) states that if the property cannot be returned, it ought to be turned over to an appropriate law enforcement entity.

If we're to believe Gizmodo's story (currently the only one published by a party to the incident), Brian Hogan tried calling Apple to return the phone and was written off as having found a knockoff. I'm not saying this is true necessarily, but nobody familiar with the situation has publicly refuted it at this point. We have no reason to assume this section of penal code is applicable. The civil code certainly is applicable IMO, but now we're talking about a civil infraction (on the order of most traffic tickets), not felony theft. Those are some strong words, and I'm really hoping there's more to the story. If there isn't, the judge had no place issuing that warrant.

I've heard some talk of CA's "trade secret" laws, and that may well apply here in more serious ways, but I'm unfamiliar with it and therefore don't have an opinion of great value, but it seems to me (from the disassembly photos) that this phone was designed for damage control if it fell into the wrong hands. We know little more about the new device than its form factor (not likely to give the competition much of an edge), mostly because of the concealment of much of the logic board by a series of metal brackets.

Also, they didn't fire the engineer who lost it. I've even wondered if this was actually an internally planned leak. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm more excited about the next iteration of iPhone than I'd otherwise have been at this point.

If we're to believe Gizmodo's story (currently the only one published by a party to the incident), Brian Hogan tried calling Apple to return the phone and was written off as having found a knockoff. I'm not saying this is true necessarily, but nobody familiar with the situation has publicly refuted it at this point.

wired.com found the finder, possibly independently from the police, and was able to talk to the finder's lawyer:

iPhone Finder Regrets His Mistake
...
A friend of Hogans then offered to call Apple Care on Hogans behalf, according to Hogans lawyer. That apparently was the extent of Hogans efforts to return the phone.

After the friends purported efforts to return the phone failed, several journalists were offered a look at the device. Wired.com received an e-mail March 28 not from Hogan offering access to the iPhone, but did not follow up on the exchange after the tipster made a thinly veiled request for money. Gizmodo then paid $5,000 in cash for it.

The owners of the bar told reporters that Hogan didnt notify anyone who worked at the bar about the phone. They also said Powell returned several times after losing the phone to see if anyone had found it and turned it in. Powell and Apples outside counsel contacted the San Mateo County District Attorneys office last week to report the phone stolen, according to reports.

This is pretty simple. Hogan himself never tried to return the device. A friend is purported to call AppleCare. After that, he shopped the device to gadget blogger/media websites. Not only did he not do that himself, he had someone do it for him. As far as I tell, he took the device from the other bar patron, asked around bar the phone was theirs, then left with it.

Quote:

We have no reason to assume this section of penal code is applicable. The civil code certainly is applicable IMO, but now we're talking about a civil infraction (on the order of most traffic tickets), not felony theft. Those are some strong words, and I'm really hoping there's more to the story. If there isn't, the judge had no place issuing that warrant.

It's felony theft. With the data that we have in hand today, the "finder" did not actually find the device, some other dude found it and asked if it was his. I find it curious, that his lawyer did not state anything about him saying it wasn't his after taking it. He knew the owner after messing around with the Facebook app. A fried of his offered to call AppleCare. He never went back to the bar. He knew it was an invaluable iPhone prototype, otherwise, he wouldn't have been shopping it around, with a fence to boot. He sold it to Gizmodo, and shopped it to Engadget and Wired.

There's basically no sane jury that'll say he didn't steal it.

Quote:

I've heard some talk of CA's "trade secret" laws, and that may well apply here in more serious ways, but I'm unfamiliar with it and therefore don't have an opinion of great value, but it seems to me (from the disassembly photos) that this phone was designed for damage control if it fell into the wrong hands. We know little more about the new device than its form factor (not likely to give the competition much of an edge), mostly because of the concealment of much of the logic board by a series of metal brackets.

The form factor and design is a trade secret.

Quote:

Also, they didn't fire the engineer who lost it. I've even wondered if this was actually an internally planned leak. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm more excited about the next iteration of iPhone than I'd otherwise have been at this point.

No, Apple does not leak like this. Nobody does. If they want to leak something, they'll do it through the Wall Street Journal.

This prototype phone and all the story around it is national news. It's been in the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and even on Letterman. It's not just forum geeks that know about it.

It's also not 'most everyone' who knows not to buy an iPhone a few months before June/July. THAT is the part that mostly forum geeks know about. The average mobile user doesn't follow it at that level.

You managed to get it exactly backwards.

Would you call letterman, newsweekly and the others FREE PRESSor what!
Any sales they lose will be made up in full by the new item in fact, the iPhone just surpassed a big company just last week. Trust me. This is how Apple operates and to those non geeks in the stores, like I said, I have heard specialist tell them to hold off as there is a better phone right around the corner. Many that didn't pop for the GS will fir this one going from a G to 4.0, mark it down. Sakes are going to be huge and no other phone company is going to capitalize on the leaked info, no way.

wired.com found the finder, possibly independently from the police, and was able to talk to the finder's lawyer:

iPhone Finder Regrets His ‘Mistake’
...
A friend of Hogan’s then offered to call Apple Care on Hogan’s behalf, according to Hogan’s lawyer. That apparently was the extent of Hogan’s efforts to return the phone.

After the friend’s purported efforts to return the phone failed, several journalists were offered a look at the device. Wired.com received an e-mail March 28 — not from Hogan — offering access to the iPhone, but did not follow up on the exchange after the tipster made a thinly veiled request for money. Gizmodo then paid $5,000 in cash for it.

The owners of the bar told reporters that Hogan didn’t notify anyone who worked at the bar about the phone. They also said Powell returned several times after losing the phone to see if anyone had found it and turned it in. Powell and Apple’s outside counsel contacted the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office last week to report the phone stolen, according to reports.

This is pretty simple. Hogan himself never tried to return the device. A friend is purported to call AppleCare. After that, he shopped the device to gadget blogger/media websites. Not only did he not do that himself, he had someone do it for him. As far as I tell, he took the device from the other bar patron, asked around bar the phone was theirs, then left with it.

It's felony theft. With the data that we have in hand today, the "finder" did not actually find the device, some other dude found it and asked if it was his. I find it curious, that his lawyer did not state anything about him saying it wasn't his after taking it. He knew the owner after messing around with the Facebook app. A fried of his offered to call AppleCare. He never went back to the bar. He knew it was an invaluable iPhone prototype, otherwise, he wouldn't have been shopping it around, with a fence to boot. He sold it to Gizmodo, and shopped it to Engadget and Wired.

There's basically no sane jury that'll say he didn't steal it.

The form factor and design is a trade secret.

No, Apple does not leak like this. Nobody does. If they want to leak something, they'll do it through the Wall Street Journal.

Wired has changed their story multiple times. They are spreading controversy. Playing both sides. You read any report that has wired involved either as the writers or those being questioned and their story changes.

As for the "theft", that is inconclusive until proven.

What does matter are the other reported facts, one of which being the phone was not reported stolen until after the story was reported. It was missing for a month. a month, but it wasn't reported stolen until they "knew" who had it?

The other part that fails is apparently they knew who had it. They visited the home of the person who was in original possession before custody was transferred, first to Gizmodo, then to apple.

They went to his house. Apple reps asked for the "finder" by name, but they "ask" the task force to kick down Chen's door?

That doesn't wash. No matter how you attempt to manipulate it, none of it washes.

The only explanation is Apple (read: Jobs) wants these agencies (news agencies) for their own purposes. They have no problem inviting them to expos or the campus to report on Apple's terms, but do not want any investigative reporting.

Investigative reporting is actual news. It's what reporters are supposed to do. Not parrots sitting at desks on television reading what has been given to them to read (Fox News, anyone? - and before anyone says it, there was already a leaked memo from Fox telling the reporters what news to "report" (make up) that was reported on shortly after the 2008 election.)

But Apple, like most corporations that are fat and happy in their positions of power want parrots.

And, apparently from what I have read in this forum on this subject, so does everyone else.

It's like Pontius Pilot (I probably spelled that incorrectly) giving the fate of the "king of the Jews" to the people, who were, of course the Jews.

Like him, I wash my hands of this. You will hang Gizmodo, whether they are guilty or not because most of you do not want to admit to yourselves you are actually proud they eliminated the waiting game, got past Apple's wall, even if it was based on Apple's own mistake, and gave you something before Apple did, so you will crucify them to assuage your own guilt.

I feel this will be thrown out of criminal court before it even gets there, and will then become a civil issue, but even if I'm wrong, which I am willing to admit I may be due to the tricky maneuvering of what is the legal system, I am attempting remain impartial which a good part of you have not.

So, yes, I stand by what I said earlier. All of it.

And don't bother to respond to any of this. I really have no patience for the whining defensives responses it will garner.

What does matter are the other reported facts, one of which being the phone was not reported stolen until after the story was reported. It was missing for a month. a month, but it wasn't reported stolen until they "knew" who had it?

This is irrelevant to the "finder's" actions. Who knows why Apple didn't report it stolen earlier, but it really doesn't matter to the case.

Quote:

The other part that fails is apparently they knew who had it. They visited the home of the person who was in original possession before custody was transferred, first to Gizmodo, then to apple.

wired.com published a report on April 27 stating that their source said that people purporting to be Apple representatives visited the finder's apartment "last week". Gizmodo had the phone from April 13/14 to April 19. In anybody's parlance, someone saying "last week" on April 26-27 would be April 18 to April 24.

Once Engadget published their photos and story, Apple's investigators had a big lead on who had the phone just like Wired's investigators. Whether they knew if Gizmodo had it or the "finder" who knows, I'm sure they looked at it from all angles.

One thing you can't say is that they visited the finder's home prior to Gizmodo's and Engadget's blog posts based on the information we have to date.

Quote:

They went to his house. Apple reps asked for the "finder" by name, but they "ask" the task force to kick down Chen's door?

That doesn't wash. No matter how you attempt to manipulate it, none of it washes.

What doesn't make sense? If wired was able to track down the finder's name and location, you don't think Apple can?

Quote:

The only explanation is Apple (read: Jobs) wants these agencies (news agencies) for their own purposes. They have no problem inviting them to expos or the campus to report on Apple's terms, but do not want any investigative reporting.

There's no conspiracy. People do stupid things: the Apple employee who went to a beer house for his birthday while at work and lost it, the "finder" who kept it and then shopped it, and Gizmodo buying stolen goods and publishing trade secrets. Stupidity all around. This is how these sorts of things blow up.

I'd rather believe that people are stupid than some weird Apple conspiracy.

Quote:

Investigative reporting is actual news. It's what reporters are supposed to do.

That's fine. But reporters aren't supposed to commit felonies doing it. Gizmodo could have done the "reveal" without buying the phone, but they were too stupid to do that and left themselves vulnerable to criminal investigation. They didn't have to buy the phone whatsoever. They could have paid for an interview, they could have rented a room at the finders home, any number of things instead of committing a felony.

Just like the "finder" was too stupid in trying to make money off the phone. Somewhere in his brain, he felt it was a good idea to sell the phone to gadget news sites, and he didn't think that once the gadget news site published the info, pictures and video of the phone, police weren't going to find him. Not only that, somewhere in his brain, he thought having a friend shop the phone protected him in some way. Not to mention the friend who thought it was a good idea to act as a fence. Not to mention not trying to return the phone at all.

Quote:

But Apple, like most corporations that are fat and happy in their positions of power want parrots.

All monied organizations want to control the media cycle. That's pure self interest, and that's fine. Gizmodo was just too stupid to protect themselves and left themselves vulnerable to criminal investigation. Wired and Engadget were smart enough not to do it.

Quote:

Like him, I wash my hands of this. You will hang Gizmodo, whether they are guilty or not because most of you do not want to admit to yourselves you are actually proud they eliminated the waiting game, got past Apple's wall, even if it was based on Apple's own mistake, and gave you something before Apple did, so you will crucify them to assuage your own guilt.

As an AAPL stock holder, I'm not proud that Gizmodo" eliminated the waiting game." They've totally destroyed Apple's marketing cycle and has harmed Apple's business. They should be investigated. If they did something illegal, they should be prosecuted and punished.

Quote:

I feel this will be thrown out of criminal court before it even gets there, and will then become a civil issue, but even if I'm wrong, which I am willing to admit I may be due to the tricky maneuvering of what is the legal system, I am attempting remain impartial which a good part of you have not.

Oh, if the police choose to prosecute, the finder and his friends are toast. Gizmodo, I'm not sure, we'll see. A potential civil case, who knows. Not sure what the complaint about partiality is all about.

This is irrelevant to the "finder's" actions. Who knows why Apple didn't report it stolen earlier, but it really doesn't matter to the case.

wired.com published a report on April 27 stating that their source said that people purporting to be Apple representatives visited the finder's apartment "last week". Gizmodo had the phone from April 13/14 to April 19. In anybody's parlance, someone saying "last week" on April 26-27 would be April 18 to April 24.

Once Engadget published their photos and story, Apple's investigators had a big lead on who had the phone just like Wired's investigators. Whether they knew if Gizmodo had it or the "finder" who knows, I'm sure they looked at it from all angles.

One thing you can't say is that they visited the finder's home prior to Gizmodo's and Engadget's blog posts based on the information we have to date.

What doesn't make sense? If wired was able to track down the finder's name and location, you don't think Apple can?

There's no conspiracy. People do stupid things: the Apple employee who went to a beer house for his birthday while at work and lost it, the "finder" who kept it and then shopped it, and Gizmodo buying stolen goods and publishing trade secrets. Stupidity all around. This is how these sorts of things blow up.

I'd rather believe that people are stupid than some weird Apple conspiracy.

That's fine. But reporters aren't supposed to commit felonies doing it. Gizmodo could have done the "reveal" without buying the phone, but they were too stupid to do that and left themselves vulnerable to criminal investigation. They didn't have to buy the phone whatsoever. They could have paid for an interview, they could have rented a room at the finders home, any number of things instead of committing a felony.

Just like the "finder" was too stupid in trying to make money off the phone. Somewhere in his brain, he felt it was a good idea to sell the phone to gadget news sites, and he didn't think that once the gadget news site published the info, pictures and video of the phone, police weren't going to find him. Not only that, somewhere in his brain, he thought having a friend shop the phone protected him in some way. Not to mention the friend who thought it was a good idea to act as a fence. Not to mention not trying to return the phone at all.

All monied organizations want to control the media cycle. That's pure self interest, and that's fine. Gizmodo was just too stupid to protect themselves and left themselves vulnerable to criminal investigation. Wired and Engadget were smart enough not to do it.

As an AAPL stock holder, I'm not proud that Gizmodo" eliminated the waiting game." They've totally destroyed Apple's marketing cycle and has harmed Apple's business. They should be investigated. If they did something illegal, they should be prosecuted and punished.

Oh, if the police choose to prosecute, the finder and his friends are toast. Gizmodo, I'm not sure, we'll see. A potential civil case, who knows. Not sure what the complaint about partiality is all about.

I'll be concise.

I never stated Apple had a conspiracy. I stated they were usury and nothing more. A "play on our terms or we're taking our toys and going home" or a "do what we say or you'll be sorry" essentially almost childish type of usury.

Also, my entire point, from the beginning, has been that the parties that should be under investigation were the "finder" and friends. It is of no fault to Gizmodo that Apple elected not to own up to it being their device before hand. The onus for that is on apple alone. I am a shareholder as well (I just don't feel I must qualify my statements with that fact), and I feel what apple did was a public relations nightmare for a quick moment of self satisfaction against what has been stated several times over to be their greatest enmity: The press.

As for Gizmodo committing a Felony? That has yet to be determined, so everyone should stop saying that as of last week.

Oh, don't be such a whiner. AAPL is currently almost 20% of my stock port (will be more by the end of the week), and I'm not upset in the least. Google searches for "iPhone" are more plentiful than they've ever been preceding a new model's announcement.

As a general rule, more consumer interest means more sales. So quit being a drama queen and enjoy your profits next quarter. Maybe even send Mr. Chen a thank you note.

Oh, don't be such a whiner. AAPL is currently almost 20% of my stock port (will be more by the end of the week), and I'm not upset in the least. Google searches for "iPhone" are more plentiful than they've ever been preceding a new model's announcement.
...
As a general rule, more consumer interest means more sales. So quit being a drama queen and enjoy your profits next quarter. Maybe even send Mr. Chen a thank you note.

Hopefully, he'll receive it in jail. I kid.

The Google searches are growing yes, but that's not consumer interest in the way you (Apple) would want it. These searches were just as much about the controversy and the tabloid-esque (more infamous than fame) quality of the whole thing. It wasn't really about the next gen iPhone as Apple would have it. I know which one I would want to have and when to have it.

I never stated Apple had a conspiracy. I stated they were usury and nothing more. A "play on our terms or we're taking our toys and going home" or a "do what we say or you'll be sorry" essentially almost childish type of usury.

I'm fine with it. I would have preferred if you used a different word from usury, but ok. If they aren't paranoid, they aren't doing their job and they aren't protecting their business. If one doesn't want something like this to happen again, then the finder, the finder's friends and Gizmodo has to know what the price is going to be (within what the law allows). I'll be curious if Apple allows Gizmodo to future Apple press events.

Too many people want Apple to be some nice company with pure altruistic motives. This is totally unrealistic and they would go out of business pretty quick without controlling the media cycle, not protecting their business, not protecting their secrets.

Quote:

Also, my entire point, from the beginning, has been that the parties that should be under investigation were the "finder" and friends. It is of no fault to Gizmodo that Apple elected not to own up to it being their device before hand. The onus for that is on apple alone. I am a shareholder as well (I just don't feel I must qualify my statements with that fact), and I feel what apple did was a public relations nightmare for a quick moment of self satisfaction against what has been stated several times over to be their greatest enmity: The press.

You are attributing more power to the press than they have, especially in regards to Apple who they have at multiple times declared dead and criticized various Apple products that have become game-changing products. It's just a group of people just as smart and dumb as any other set of people. Their words don't control the market just like all the mispredictions of product performance. Maybe they are a force multiplier, but ultimately the performance of the product up to consumers (and the various business things that the vendor does like price, product quality, etc.)

Remember that Gizmodo had many avenues to protect themselves, but they were stupid, and opened themselves up to criminal investigation. What gives them a free pass?

Quote:

As for Gizmodo committing a Felony? That has yet to be determined, so everyone should stop saying that as of last week.

Um, you do know this is the Internet? Half the forum members don't even see your emails anymore. It's as if you don't exist to them anymore.

I'm fine with it. I would have preferred if you used a different word from usury, but ok. If they aren't paranoid, they aren't doing their job and they aren't protecting their business. If one doesn't want something like this to happen again, then the finder, the finder's friends and Gizmodo has to know what the price is going to be (within what the law allows). I'll be curious if Apple allows Gizmodo to future Apple press events.

Too many people want Apple to be some nice company with pure altruistic motives. This is totally unrealistic and they would go out of business pretty quick without controlling the media cycle, not protecting their business, not protecting their secrets.

You are attributing more power to the press than they have, especially in regards to Apple who they have at multiple times declared dead and criticized various Apple products that have become game-changing products. It's just a group of people just as smart and dumb as any other set of people. Their words don't control the market just like all the mispredictions of product performance. Maybe they are a force multiplier, but ultimately the performance of the product up to consumers (and the various business things that the vendor does like price, product quality, etc.)

Remember that Gizmodo had many avenues to protect themselves, but they were stupid, and opened themselves up to criminal investigation. What gives them a free pass?

Um, you do know this is the Internet? Half the forum members don't even see your emails anymore. It's as if you don't exist to them anymore.

Fine with me. That means I could essentially say whatever I wanted about them and they couldn't defend themselves. They opted of the joke. I no longer have to be polite to them. The fact is I know how this will turn out. It's obvious.

As for the protections Gizmodo had, you are missing my point completely. I am not giving the press that allusion of power, but apple has. In their crossing swords with the press on multiple occasions they elected to attempt to make an example out of Gizmodo.

You said it correctly the first time: If charges are pressed it will be against the finder. They will have to cut Chen and company loose. It's no fault but their own based on how they elected to handle the affair.

When that happens, no one will say anything and try to forget they did say anything against Gizmodo, just as they were happy to comment on the phone when they saw it and then immediately slammed gizmodo because in their eyes that was what apple was doing.

As for the protections Gizmodo had, you are missing my point completely. I am not giving the press that allusion of power, but apple has. In their crossing swords with the press on multiple occasions they elected to attempt to make an example out of Gizmodo.

You're saying that by Apple picking on Gizmodo, Apple is giving Gizmodo more power? But the press really doesn't have that much power in regards to Apple's product performance?

Quote:

You said it correctly the first time: If charges are pressed it will be against the finder. They will have to cut Chen and company loose. It's no fault but their own based on how they elected to handle the affair.

It's pretty simple. If Gizmodo looks like they've committed a crime, they should be investigated and charged. If they are proven to have committed a crime, they should a pay a price. I don't see any reason for them to get a free lunch.

If it had something to do with the public good. Sure, no problem there, but this isn't really an instance of public good.

Quote:

When that happens, no one will say anything and try to forget they did say anything against Gizmodo, just as they were happy to comment on the phone when they saw it and then immediately slammed gizmodo because in their eyes that was what apple was doing.

I never stated Apple had a conspiracy. I stated they were usury and nothing more. A "play on our terms or we're taking our toys and going home" or a "do what we say or you'll be sorry" essentially almost childish type of usury.

Why should anyone pay attention so someone who doesn't even know what usury means - yet tries to use it in discussion? Maybe you should learn that words have a meaning and communication is easier if you use the correct word. Now, what are you trying to say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

Also, my entire point, from the beginning, has been that the parties that should be under investigation were the "finder" and friends. It is of no fault to Gizmodo that Apple elected not to own up to it being their device before hand. The onus for that is on apple alone. I am a shareholder as well (I just don't feel I must qualify my statements with that fact), and I feel what apple did was a public relations nightmare for a quick moment of self satisfaction against what has been stated several times over to be their greatest enmity: The press.

That is BS - both legally and morally. The phone was stolen under the law. The fact that Gizmodo was willing to pay $5 K for it is pretty strong evidence that they knew it was an Apple prototype and did not belong to the 'finder'. Furthermore, just knowing that they guy found it in a bar is enough for them to know that it was stolen - and they had no right to buy it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

As for Gizmodo committing a Felony? That has yet to be determined, so everyone should stop saying that as of last week.

What we have to go on is public statements from parties involved. Those are almost enough to convict. Chen admits that the 'finder' found it in a bar and did not make a reasonable effort to return it. Even if he HAD made a reasonable effort to return it, there had not been enough time elapsed for it to have become the finder's property. Yet Chen purchased the phone. Other than some questions to establish basis, that would be enough to convict.

Furthermore, public statements in a case like this are almost always skewed in the favor of the speaker. They would be calculated to show Chen in the best possible light. If that's the case here, then the real situation may actually be worse.

Personally, I think that what Chen is so eager to hide, and what the police are eager to keep secret for a while, is that there was actually a conspiracy to obtain the phone. That would explain why Chen was so quick to spout his 'found in a bar' story - even though that makes him a felon.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13